In 2025, TP reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
Wang Chun Kwok, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Ahmad Anouti, University of Texas Southwestern, USA
Darrell O. Ricke, Molecular BioInsights, USA
Allison Kimball, Harvard Medical School, USA
Yusuke Hoshino, Ibaraki Children’s Hospital, Japan
Wang Chun Kwok
Dr. Wang Chun Kwok Herbert is currently working as Clinical Assistant Professor in the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include airway diseases including asthma, bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. He was awarded the Li Shu Fan Fellowship for Internal Medicine to support his study in phenotyping and therapeutics of airway diseases. He was also awarded competitive research grant to support his research in respiratory medicine. Dr. Kwok was awarded the APSR 2024:HKLF Professor Wah-kit Lam Young Investigator Award, travel grant to KATRDIC 2024, Outstanding Author of JTD 2024, APSR Travel Award to the JRS Annual Meeting 2024, Assembly Education Award in the 26th Congress of APSR 2022, best oral presentation in the 8th APRC(2022), APSR Teaching Library Award (2019), best Abstract of the Assembly in the 22nd Congress of APSR (2017) and Professor Wah-kit Lam Young Investigator Award 2017/2018 in recognition of his research work. Learn more about him here.
TP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Kwok: To ensure the research work is conducted appropriately, peer review is needed. The reviewer will first examine if the research question is appropriate. The reviewers will also make sure the methodology is correct and advise for revision if appropriate. The presentation of the results is equally important, which will be assessed in the peer-review process. Lastly, the conclusion should be appropriate based on the results, which the reviewers have the responsibility to check on. Overall, peer review is needed to ensure that the research article is of adequate quality.
TP: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Kwok: Constructive review shall include non-biased constructive comments aiming at pointing out the problems of the research and suggest for improvement. Destructive review is usually making personal biased comments which cannot help to improve the research at all, such as giving comments saying the work is unsatisfactory without clear reasons.
TP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Kwok: Thanks for reviewing our works, which does not only improve the quality of the research, but also serves as a platform for us to have mutual communication and learn from each other.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ahmad Anouti
Ahmad Anouti, MD, is a pediatric resident at the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) and Childrens Health Dallas in the Physician Scientist Training Program, where he studies pediatric liver disease. Prior to his current position, he was a postdoctoral research fellow at UTSW, working on several research projects focused on liver disease and transplantation. Dr. Anoutis’ research interests include pediatric liver transplant outcomes, biliary atresia, and Fontan associated liver disease. In his 2.5 years at UTSW, he has published 14 different manuscripts in several journals focusing on liver disease in both adult and pediatric patients. He has been involved in clinical, basic, and translational research. Additionally, Dr. Anouti is a biliary atresia and liver transplant patient himself and has been a strong advocate for the community, collaborating with organizations such as Biliary Atresia and Research Awareness (BARE), the Global Liver Institute (GLI), and the American Liver Foundation (ALF). Connect with him on X @anouti_ahmad.
TP: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Anouti: As a physician scientist in training, I fully appreciate the value and importance of peer review. This process plays a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy, quality, and credibility of research before publication. Reviewers assess the manuscript's methodology, data analysis, and conclusions to verify that the research is original, significant, and adheres to the field's ethical and methodological standards, thereby advancing the field. Peer review helps prevent the dissemination of flawed or fraudulent research, encouraging authors to meet high standards and maintain the integrity of the scientific record. It often provides constructive feedback, helping authors refine their work to clarify their arguments and findings, which enhances the overall quality of the published research. Despite the busy schedules of many researchers, the time and effort put into peer reviewing are invaluable as they provide insight into current work in the field while supporting both established and emerging researchers.
TP: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Anouti: A good reviewer in the scientific peer-review process should possess several key qualities, including a knowledge of the field, objectivity, critical thinking, constructive feedback, confidentiality, and punctuality. Reviewers should have a good understanding of the subject matter and stay up to date on the latest developments to assess the accuracy and relevance of the research. While younger reviewers might not have the same level of expertise as their more seasoned counterparts, their basic scientific knowledge and eagerness to learn can provide a new perspective on novel and emerging research projects. It is crucial for reviewers to remain unbiased, evaluating manuscripts solely on scientific merit, and to apply critical thinking to thoroughly analyze the work, identifying any potential flaws. Providing clear, constructive, and actionable feedback is essential. Reviewers must also uphold the confidentiality of the review process, complete their reviews on time to respect publication timelines, and remain vigilant about potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism and data falsification. These qualities ensure that the peer-review process upholds high scientific standards and contributes positively to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
TP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Anouti: Being a researcher is an intensely demanding job that requires considerable mental effort and resilience. While reviewing might sometimes seem like a misuse of valuable time, it is crucial for staying current with advancements and contributing to progress in the field. Stepping away from one's own projects to review a manuscript offers researchers a fresh perspective not only on the field at large but also on their own work. This can inspire new ideas and approaches that enhance their projects. Reviewing provides a genuine learning opportunity and access to the most relevant and up-to-date information available. This activity allows researchers to stay at the forefront of their field, gaining insights into the latest trends, methodologies, and findings. Additionally, many researchers experience frustration while waiting for feedback on their manuscripts, often due to delays caused by external reviewers. There is a general expectation for one's work to be reviewed accurately, ethically, and promptly. Therefore, it is only fair that researchers reciprocate by engaging in the peer-review process with the same level of diligence and speed. Doing so facilitates a more efficient and effective exchange of knowledge, helping to maintain the integrity of scientific research and accelerate the publication process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Darrell O. Ricke
Dr. Darrell Ricke is a principal scientist at Molecular BioInsights (previously at MIT Lincoln Laboratory). His research pursuits include human diseases, infectious diseases, medical countermeasures including vaccines, vaccine adverse events, advanced DNA forensics, and bioinformatics/ computational biology. He has recently published SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 research on clinical treatment, early cardiac pathology, thrombocytopenia, etiology of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, antibody dependent enhancement, and etiology of Kawasaki Disease. His DNA forensics solutions were a 2018 R&D 100 winner and a 2021 R&D 100 finalist, as well as a 2018 MIT Lincoln Laboratory Best Invention. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ricke believes that reviewers should offer honest and unbiased feedback on the articles under consideration. Honesty is crucial as it ensures that the evaluation of the work is based on its true merits and flaws. Unbiased feedback helps in maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process, allowing the scientific community to rely on the reviews to determine the quality and validity of the research presented in the articles.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Ricke emphasizes the significance of data sharing in scientific writing. He believes that scientific writing is centered around presenting new insights, discoveries, and innovative methods. If an article is based on flawed data, it can lead to a lack of progress and unnecessary delays in the field. For smaller datasets, he suggests including them as supplemental data or releasing them in open-data repositories like Harvard Dataverse, which provides doi references for easy access and citation. He is also a strong advocate for making software tools open-source whenever possible, as this promotes collaboration and further development within the scientific community. By sharing data and tools, researchers can build on each other's work more effectively, accelerating the pace of scientific discovery.
Despite the heavy workload associated with being a scientist, Dr. Ricke sees value in peer review. He notes that as a reviewer, he can contribute in multiple ways. He can point out elements that can improve the article, identify key issues that are missing, and spot both infrequent errors and common mistakes. Additionally, the articles he reviews sometimes introduce new dimensions of problems that he has not previously considered, which is intellectually stimulating. To manage his time, he tries to accept invitations to review relevant articles. However, when he is unable to provide timely feedback, he declines the invitation, thus ensuring that the review process is not hindered by delays.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Allison Kimball
Dr. Allison Kimball is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital with a clinical expertise in pituitary disorders and diabetes. She is interested in the interplay between endocrine dysfunction and psychiatric disease, and she conducts clinical research on hormonal determinants of mood symptoms and quality of life in patients with psychiatric disorders and pituitary disorders, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, treatment-resistant depression, anorexia nervosa, and acromegaly. Additionally, Dr. Kimball is a passionate educator with an interest in student and trainee mentorship and well-being. She holds several leadership roles in both undergraduate and graduate medical education.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Kimball: Limitations of the existing peer-review system include the lack of a standardized and transparent review process, inherent biases that may affect how reviewers judge manuscripts, and insufficient time and training for reviewers. Formal guidelines should be developed for peer review with metrics to ensure that they are being followed, and reviewers should be blinded to the author names and affiliations until after an editorial decision is made. This may help to improve objectivity and transparency. Moreover, a high-quality review takes time to complete and is largely unincentivized, and identification of reviewers with scientific expertise can be challenging. One strategy to address this is for senior reviewers to invite junior colleagues to collaborate on reviews and to mentor them in the process.
TP: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Kimball: When providing criticism, it is critical that reviewers remain sensitive to the huge amount of time and effort that authors put into their research and in preparing the manuscript. Comments should be constructive, kind, and based on science. For manuscripts that are not accepted, comments made during peer review can be especially useful as authors seek to revise their manuscript or plan future research. A platform to allow discussion between authors and reviewers may be valuable in those cases.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yusuke Hoshino
Yusuke Hoshino serves as the chief neonatologist at the Department of Neonatology, Ibaraki Children’s Hospital in Mito, Japan. His main area of interest is the respiratory management of preterm infants, with a specific emphasis on lung and diaphragm ultrasound. He obtained his PhD from the University of Tsukuba for his research on the application of lung ultrasound in neonatal care. In 2024, he was recognized with the Academic Paper Award from the Japan Society for Neonatal Health and Development. Currently, he is actively involved in the development of international evidence-based recommendations for Point-of-Care lung ultrasound (ICC LUS 2.0), a global initiative led by WINFOCUS. Connect with him on X @yusuke_hos.
According to Dr. Hoshino, peer review is crucial in the scientific domain. It acts as a safeguard for the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. Serving as a vital checkpoint, it ensures that research findings are accurate, have a solid methodological foundation, and are conducted ethically. Through independent evaluations by experts in the relevant field, peer review contributes to the improvement of manuscripts. It helps in identifying errors or biases that might otherwise go unnoticed, thereby strengthening the overall scientific literature and upholding the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge.
An objective review, as Dr. Hoshino defines it, is one that assesses a manuscript strictly based on its scientific value, the soundness of its methodology, and its relevance to the field. It is free from the influence of personal opinions, affiliations, or biases. To maintain objectivity in his own reviews, he focuses on key aspects such as the clarity of the research question posed in the manuscript. He also examines the appropriateness of the study design and analysis methods employed, as well as the validity of the conclusions drawn. Throughout the review process, he makes an effort to be fair, offers constructive feedback, and shows respect for the authors' work, all of which contribute to an objective and helpful evaluation.
From a reviewer's perspective, Dr. Hoshino strongly believes that it is important for authors to adhere to established reporting guidelines like CONSORT and CARE when preparing their manuscripts. These guidelines provide a structured framework that significantly enhances the transparency, completeness, and reproducibility of research. By following these guidelines, authors can ensure that all essential information is included, which is vital for reviewers and readers to accurately assess the quality and reliability of the study. In his experience, manuscripts that comply with these reporting guidelines are generally clearer and more informative, making the review process more efficient and effective. This, in turn, benefits the entire scientific community by facilitating the dissemination of high-quality research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
